Skip to main content
Top
Published in: European Radiology 1/2017

01-01-2017 | Gastrointestinal

CT colonography for surveillance of patients with colorectal cancer: Systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic efficacy

Authors: François Porté, Mallikarjuna Uppara, George Malietzis, Omar Faiz, Steve Halligan, Thanos Athanasiou, David Burling

Published in: European Radiology | Issue 1/2017

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

To review primary research evidence investigating performance of CT colonography for colorectal cancer surveillance. The financial impact of using CT colonography for surveillance was also estimated.

Methods

We identified primary studies of CT colonography for surveillance of colorectal cancer patients. A summary ROC curve was constructed. Inter-study heterogeneity was explored using the I2 value. Financial impact was estimated for a theoretical cohort of patients, based on Cancer Research UK statistics.

Results

Seven studies provided data on 880 patients. Five of seven studies (765 patients) were included for qualitative analysis. Sensitivity of CT colonography for detection of anastomotic recurrence was 95 % (95 % CI 62 − 100), specificity 100 % (95 % CI 75 − 100) and sensitivity for metachronous cancers was 100 %. No statistical heterogeneity was detected (I2 = 0 %). We estimated that CT colonography as a 'single test' alternative to colonoscopy and standard CT for surveillance would potentially save €20,785,232 (£14,803,404) for an annual cohort of UK patients.

Conclusion

CT colonography compares favourably to colonoscopy for detection of anastomotic recurrence and metachronous colorectal cancer, and appears financially beneficial. These findings should be considered alongside limitations of small patient numbers and high clinical heterogeneity between studies.

Key Points

• CT colonography compares favourably to colonoscopy/standard CT for colorectal cancer surveillance.
• CT colonography offers single-test luminal, serosal and extra-colonic assessment.
• CT colonography is a potentially cost-saving alternative to standard surveillance protocols.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference Atkin W, Dadswell E, Wooldrage K et al (2013) Computed tomographic colonography versus colonoscopy for investigation of patients with symptoms suggestive of colorectal cancer (SIGGAR): A multicentre randomised trial. Lancet 381(9873):1194–1202CrossRefPubMed Atkin W, Dadswell E, Wooldrage K et al (2013) Computed tomographic colonography versus colonoscopy for investigation of patients with symptoms suggestive of colorectal cancer (SIGGAR): A multicentre randomised trial. Lancet 381(9873):1194–1202CrossRefPubMed
3.
go back to reference Meyerhardt JA, Mangu PB, Flynn PJ et al (2013) Follow-up care, surveillance protocol, and secondary prevention measures for survivors of colorectal cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology clinical practice guideline endorsement. J Clin Oncol 31:4465–4470CrossRefPubMed Meyerhardt JA, Mangu PB, Flynn PJ et al (2013) Follow-up care, surveillance protocol, and secondary prevention measures for survivors of colorectal cancer: American Society of Clinical Oncology clinical practice guideline endorsement. J Clin Oncol 31:4465–4470CrossRefPubMed
5.
go back to reference Renehan a G (2002) Impact on survival of intensive follow up after curative resection for colorectal cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials. BMJ 324:813–813CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Renehan a G (2002) Impact on survival of intensive follow up after curative resection for colorectal cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials. BMJ 324:813–813CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
7.
go back to reference Primrose JN, Perera R, Gray A et al (2014) Effect of 3 to 5 years of scheduled CEA and CT follow-up to detect recurrence of colorectal cancer: the FACS randomized clinical trial. JAMA 311(3):263–270CrossRefPubMed Primrose JN, Perera R, Gray A et al (2014) Effect of 3 to 5 years of scheduled CEA and CT follow-up to detect recurrence of colorectal cancer: the FACS randomized clinical trial. JAMA 311(3):263–270CrossRefPubMed
8.
go back to reference Pineau BC, Paskett ED, Chen GJ et al (2001) Validation of virtual colonoscopy in the detection of colorectal polyps and masses: rationale for proper study design. Int J Gastrointest Cancer 30(3):133–140 Pineau BC, Paskett ED, Chen GJ et al (2001) Validation of virtual colonoscopy in the detection of colorectal polyps and masses: rationale for proper study design. Int J Gastrointest Cancer 30(3):133–140
9.
go back to reference Neri E, Halligan S, Hellström M et al (2013) The second ESGAR consensus statement on CT colonography. Eur Radiol 23:720–729CrossRefPubMed Neri E, Halligan S, Hellström M et al (2013) The second ESGAR consensus statement on CT colonography. Eur Radiol 23:720–729CrossRefPubMed
11.
go back to reference Whiting PF, Rutjes AWS, Westwood ME et al (2011) QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. Ann Intern Med 155(4):529–536CrossRefPubMed Whiting PF, Rutjes AWS, Westwood ME et al (2011) QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. Ann Intern Med 155(4):529–536CrossRefPubMed
12.
go back to reference Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC et al (2000) Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology. A Proposal for Reporting. J Am Med Assoc 283(15):2008–2012 Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC et al (2000) Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology. A Proposal for Reporting. J Am Med Assoc 283(15):2008–2012
16.
go back to reference You YT, Chang Chien CR, Wang JY et al (2006) Evaluation of contrast-enhanced computed tomographic colonography in detection of local recurrent colorectal cancer. World J Gastroenterol 12(1):123–126CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral You YT, Chang Chien CR, Wang JY et al (2006) Evaluation of contrast-enhanced computed tomographic colonography in detection of local recurrent colorectal cancer. World J Gastroenterol 12(1):123–126CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
17.
go back to reference Fletcher JG, Johnson CD, Krueger WR, et al (2002) Contrast-enhaned CT colonography in Recurrent Colorectal Carcinoma: Feasibility of Simultaneous Evaluation for Metastatic Disease, local recurrence and metachronous neolasia in colorectal carcinoma. AJR Am J Roentgenol 178(2):283–290 Fletcher JG, Johnson CD, Krueger WR, et al (2002) Contrast-enhaned CT colonography in Recurrent Colorectal Carcinoma: Feasibility of Simultaneous Evaluation for Metastatic Disease, local recurrence and metachronous neolasia in colorectal carcinoma. AJR Am J Roentgenol 178(2):283–290
18.
go back to reference Laghi A, Iannaccone R, Bria E et al (2003) Contrast-enhanced computed tomographic colonography in the follow-up of colorectal cancer patients: a feasibility study. Eur Radiol 13:883–889PubMed Laghi A, Iannaccone R, Bria E et al (2003) Contrast-enhanced computed tomographic colonography in the follow-up of colorectal cancer patients: a feasibility study. Eur Radiol 13:883–889PubMed
19.
go back to reference Leonardou P, Striggaris K, Pappas P et al (2006) Screening of patients after colectomy: Virtual colonography. Abdom Imaging 31:521–528CrossRefPubMed Leonardou P, Striggaris K, Pappas P et al (2006) Screening of patients after colectomy: Virtual colonography. Abdom Imaging 31:521–528CrossRefPubMed
20.
go back to reference Amitai MM, Fidder H, Avidan B et al (2009) Contrast-enhanced CT colonography with 64-slice MDCT compared to endoscopic colonoscopy in the follow-up of patients after colorectal cancer resection. Clin Imaging 33(6):433–438CrossRefPubMed Amitai MM, Fidder H, Avidan B et al (2009) Contrast-enhanced CT colonography with 64-slice MDCT compared to endoscopic colonoscopy in the follow-up of patients after colorectal cancer resection. Clin Imaging 33(6):433–438CrossRefPubMed
21.
go back to reference Neri E, Vagli P, Turini F et al (2010) Post-surgical follow-up of colorectal cancer: Role of contrast-enhanced CT colonography. Abdom Imaging 35:669–675CrossRefPubMed Neri E, Vagli P, Turini F et al (2010) Post-surgical follow-up of colorectal cancer: Role of contrast-enhanced CT colonography. Abdom Imaging 35:669–675CrossRefPubMed
23.
go back to reference Bhangu A, Ali SM, Cunningham D, Brown G, Tekkis P (2013) Comparison of long-term survival outcome of operative vs nonoperative management of recurrent rectal cancer. Color Dis 15:156–163CrossRef Bhangu A, Ali SM, Cunningham D, Brown G, Tekkis P (2013) Comparison of long-term survival outcome of operative vs nonoperative management of recurrent rectal cancer. Color Dis 15:156–163CrossRef
24.
go back to reference Bhangu A, Brown G, Akmal M, Tekkis P (2012) Outcome of abdominosacral resection for locally advanced primary and recurrent rectal cancer. Br J Surg 99:1453–1461CrossRefPubMed Bhangu A, Brown G, Akmal M, Tekkis P (2012) Outcome of abdominosacral resection for locally advanced primary and recurrent rectal cancer. Br J Surg 99:1453–1461CrossRefPubMed
25.
go back to reference Heriot AG, Byrne CM, Lee P et al (2008) Extended radical resection: The choice for locally recurrent rectal cancer. Dis Colon Rectum 51:284–291CrossRefPubMed Heriot AG, Byrne CM, Lee P et al (2008) Extended radical resection: The choice for locally recurrent rectal cancer. Dis Colon Rectum 51:284–291CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
CT colonography for surveillance of patients with colorectal cancer: Systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic efficacy
Authors
François Porté
Mallikarjuna Uppara
George Malietzis
Omar Faiz
Steve Halligan
Thanos Athanasiou
David Burling
Publication date
01-01-2017
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
European Radiology / Issue 1/2017
Print ISSN: 0938-7994
Electronic ISSN: 1432-1084
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-016-4319-1

Other articles of this Issue 1/2017

European Radiology 1/2017 Go to the issue